Category Archives: Men and Women

This just in from the Trump-got-elected-and-I-can’t-stop-crying department.

I recently ran across the announcement for a “women’s strike”, scheduled for March 8th. I must confess that I found this highly amusing for several reasons.

The strike was organized by the same folks who organized the women’s marches.

As best I understand, the women’s marches were originally supposed to be a global celebration of Queen Hillary’s Coronation Inauguration. Once the unthinkable happened and – shock horror –Donald Trump won, the organizers were unable to get their money back, so like sore losers, they organized the women’s march.

If those marches had any effect, I have yet to notice it. The joke that Trump got more fat women walking in a week than Michell Obama could do in eight years is just delicious schadenfreude.

A large number of white women voted for Trump? Why? Because is a man. In a world where masculinity is denigrated and maligned by feminism, the culture and the media, a strong, confident, powerful man who works hard, goes after what he wants, and has wooed and wedded some of the most beautiful women in the world is a rare and desirable man.

Non-college-educated folks turned out to vote for Trump. Some people (i.e., the Media) trumpet this as “only rednecks who live in flyover states would be so stupid as to vote for Trump” (also known as the “you-must-be-stupid” theory). Perhaps this is true, but it is also true that America’s colleges have become hotbeds of Socialists thinking and, in some cases, indoctrination. It would be interesting to slice this by age; how did college-educated people over 40 vote?

This got me to thinking: what would happen if all of the women simply failed to show up for work?

The first thought that came to mind was a quote from Deep Thought: “And whom would that inconvenience?” What are the commonest career choices for women?

Of those three, the lack of nurses would hurt the most. no doubt about it, people would die… until the hospitals were able to replace them with junior doctors, orderlies and other volunteers.

The lack of teachers would not hurt all that much. After all, mommy would be home, and the kids would no doubt be disconsolate to not have to go to school.

I’m not sure about the loss of secretaries and clerical assistants. A significant number of those are in Government, and a significant number of those are paper-pushing functionaries. I suspect that in the short run, nobody would notice their absence. In the long term, their employers will either discover new efficiencies that get the job done, or discover that they can get along just fine without you. And fewer Government Employees means lower taxes – double-win!

I then followed that train of thought to its logical conclusion: “what would happen if the men went on strike?”

No police/military/National Guard: No law enforcement or military? Every man for himself? The thugs would have a field day. If you want to know that they would look like, look no further than the Louisiana Superdome in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: “Inside the Superdome, things were descending further into hell. The air smelled toxic. People had broken up into factions by race, separating into small groups throughout the building… A few of these groups wandered the concourse, stealing food and attacking anyone who stood up to them….A man had been caught sexually assaulting a young girl. Reports of other rapes were widespread.” Without law enforcement, women lacking the protection of a man would be at risk.

No fire services: If your house burns down, tough.

No engineers: Remember those pencil-necked Geeks you made fun of in school? They are now the guys who keep our society running. And the overwhelming majority of the engineers who keep our water, power, communication and sanitation systems operational are male. How long would it be before the power went out? How would all of those smart-phone-addicted women survive when their iPhones ran out of power?

No plumbers/heating/Air-conditioning/electricians/mechanics: Good luck when your stuff breaks down.

No roofers/builders.construction workers: Nothing gets built either.

No truck drivers: Think about this: no food deliveries to our major cities. Stores would run out of food in about three days (the normal gap between deliveries), and then the food riots will start.

Basically, without men, nothing gets built, fixed, designed, manufactured, shipped, transported or defended. And they get no recognition for this.

So go ahead with your “women’s strike” Personally, I doubt that you will get anywhere near the turnout that you expect – the women’s protesters are looking even more deranged than the Tea Party at it’s worst moments. I doubt that anyone besides the media will even notice. Life will go on without you. And some of you will likely get fired. But will that be enough for you to realized that you might be wrong? I doubt it.

I don’t watch much TV, but once in a while I blunder into an episode of Judge Judy. I find this program both amusing and somewhat saddening; almost all of the “cases” that come before the judge seem to fall into one of several common categories. It seems to me that most of those folks would have avoided this unfortunate predicament by following the following rules.

Do not live with someone without being married to them.

Do not get pregnant outside of wedlock.

Do not lend money. Shakespeare was right: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”. If you can afford it, give it to them – but do not lend.

Clear Communication: If you are lending or selling something to someone, communicate that clearly and get it in writing that they understand this. If you don’t have it in writing, you gave it to them.

You are not her ATM! Guys, do not spend money on a girl you are not in a serious relationship with. Most girls *will* string you along with vague promises of future delights, and will drop you like a hot brick as soon as the money runs out. Because. They. Can. If you are already in this situation, test her with a financial crisis that removes your ability to give her money and see what she does.

Guys, stay away from single mothers. There are all kinds of very good and sensible reasons for this, which I am not going to go into here. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Only a century ago, steam engines criss-crossed nations, making travel easy and shrinking the globe.

Behind every coal-fired locomotive was a tender, a wheeled box that held all of the fuel that the locomotive would need to reach its destination. The tender was not particularly glamorous, nor did it get the attention and the admiration that the Locomotive did, but it was just as necessary.

The same is true in life: Too many western women seem to desire the power and prestige that comes with being the locomotive. They crave the power, the freedom, the independence that comes with being self-powered. And if that is truly what they are looking for, good luck to them. But too many women find out, too late, that after successfully transforming themselves into locomotives, that what they really wanted all along was to be a tender. And having done so, they now require an exceptionally powerful locomotive; an ordinary one is no longer enough, and they never find what they are looking for. And it is always men’s fault; never the media, the culture or third-wave feminism that persuaded her that she could “have it all”.

As I mature and acquire confidence, competence, and charisma, I find myself the subject of much unwarranted admiration from such women; women who have wasted their best years chasing what they thought they wanted, only to find out that what they really wanted all along is something that they cannot get anymore. But I am not interested in them; their best and sweetest gifts have been wasted on the undeserving, and no good man wants leftovers.

My lady and I have been “hitched” for nearly three decades; she is the tender to my locomotive, and she is bloody good at it. Our connection is strong. She provides me with that which I need to excel in life. And she never puts herself first. And for that she has my everlasting gratitude.

Wooderson’s Law: all straight men are attracted to twenty-year-old women. God designed young women’s bodies to be extraordinarily attractive to men of all ages. This is a feature, not a bug.

Women are generally attracted to tall, strong men who project confidence, status and power. This is also a feature – and explains why thugs, rappers and gangsters, and billionaires have beautiful girlfriends and politicians have beautiful mistresses.

As much as women wish that it were not so, the ten-point scale is real. Most women in the western world honestly believe that they rank two points higher than they actually are.

“There are no ugly women, but there are plenty of lazy ones”.

Women are not attracted to men they don’t respect.

The average man thinks the average woman is average. The average woman thinks the average man is… unattractive.

Nice guys finish last; don’t be one. Be bold, be brave, be confident… but don’t be nice.

Attractive women are swimming in male attention. their best strategy is to ignore as many men as possible, which explains the increasingly-popular headphones-and-straight-ahead-stare, which seems to affect most of the attractive ones… and way too many of the not-so-attractive-but-delusional ones as well.

Women need two things from men; seed and provision. Rarely are the two qualities found in the same man.

Most Western women are either bored or overstimulated, which may explain their continuous need for drama.

Over the past hundred years, feminism has made a lot of advances for women.

This is, on the whole, a good thing.

But recently, it seems like the costs of this equality have been borne increasingly by men.

No-fault divorce has allowed women to walk away from the marriage while keeping most of the benefits of being married; the majority of divorces are filed by women. Women therefore have a financial incentive to divorce.

The mother of the unborn child has the choice to abort, legally abandon, or give up for adoption. The father of the unborn child has no choice, only the court-mandated obligation to pay child support for up for eighteen years. The mother is under no obligation to spend any of that money on the child.

Women get custody of children 85% of the time. Men are expected to pay, based on what the court thinks they should earn (“imputed income”), and if they cannot, they are jailed.

Women can easily demand child support while denying access to children by the mere allegation of abuse.

At least a quarter of domestic violence victims are male, but they get no attention, resources or media coverage.

Men are many times more likely to be assaulted than women, and many times more likely to be killed.

Paternity rights are a mess, and women abuse then with impunity. Paternity fraud is rampant and unabated – between one million and two million American Males are unwittingly raising another man’s child.

Four out of five suicides are male.

The men’s rights movement (MRM) arose to draw attention to these and other injustices perpetrated against men.

I am not a supporter of the MRM. I consider them to be a bunch of unattractive/elderly/neck-bearded “gentlemen” whose approach seems to be limited to protests beseeching for their rights and needs to be taken into consideration. Their grievances are real, but their methods are, in my opinion, weak and ineffective, since it involves women doing things that are not in their interest (for instance, ending Paternity Fraud, or reforming No-fault Divorce).

The fact is, women like to control the narrative. And the narrative is a simple one: woman good, man bad. Woman victim, man abuser/rapist/violent. Mother wonderful/caring/nurturing, Father lazy/no-good/loser. That is the clarion-call of the media and the trump of feminism. Men are being raised without fathers and masculinity is being demonized in the eyes of the next generation of men.

This leads me to the subject of this post. Cassie Jaye, a film-maker (and a feminist) set out to make a documentary on the MRM, called “The Red Pill”. During her research, she made a surprising discovery… that the MRM was not about oppressing women, demolishing feminism, or misogyny. She discovered that these fellows were misunderstood, and had a point. And what was originally intended to be a hatchet-piece turned into something else.

And that’s when her funding, mostly from feminist organizations, dried up. Apparently they didn’t want anything to challenge their preconceived narrative.

So she decided to go it alone. I discovered her, through this article. I then checked out her Kickstarter, and read her story. I found out that her intentions are good, her story is plausible, and her movie needs to be made.

Ashley Madison (“A-M”) is a dating website that specializes in extra-marital affairs.

Their business model is likely aimed at men, who are willing to pay for access to available – and presumably attractive – females.

Personal Data from A-M was exfiltrated, apparently by an insider who no longer works there according to AM executives.

This data includes personal email addresses, names and credit card details of millions of A-M members.

A group calling themselves the “Impact Team” have threatened to publish this data unless A-M ceases operations.

A-M have not ceased operations.

I am not going to moralize, criticize or look for someone to blame; that’s above my pay grade. I am not going to say how stupid these folks were (they were) or how easy it would have been to avoid giving out personal information (it is). What I will say is that given the number of high-level people who are likely current of former customers of A-M, this information represents the greatest vehicle for extortion that has ever existed in the history of the world.

Not every person who signed up for an account with A-M has availed themselves of their services.

Not everyone who has paid them money got anything in return.

It would be relatively easy to ruin a completely innocent person by inserting their details into the published information.

Anyone who pays money to a blackmailer to suppress publication of their information will likely face repeated demands for payment from them or others who happen upon that information in the future.

Like so many of the portents of our time, the existence and success of A-M not the problem. Just like pornography, promiscuity, the marriage strike, or “herbivore culture”, it is but a symptom of the world that we have created for ourselves. We can choose to attack A-M, but they are evidently meeting a need that millions appear to have.It would be easy to dismiss every husband with a wandering eye as a “cheater”, but there are at least two sides to every story – three if you count the truth. Incidentally, why is it that a philandering husband is always vilified and castigated, but the behavior of a cuckolding wife is so often pinned on him as well? But I digress…

When the A-M hack was announced a few weeks ago, it was greeted with much cackling and merriment, mostly from the distaff side. I was a little more sanguine, and opined that the cost of such a disclosure would be measured in lives. So imagine my surprise when I hear that there have been at least two suicides because of the A-M hack…

I’m sick of being right.

Full disclosure: While I am aware of A-M, and have a superficial understanding of how their business works, I have never been a member or signed up for any of their services. Even if I were inclined, their premise – that there are attractive married women who are itching to get a little action on the side with little old me – sounds to good to be true.

And if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that if is something is to good to be true, it probably is.

Step 3: Indoctrinate generations of women into perceiving every man as a vile monster, and that being “strong and independent” requires being hateful to men.

Step 4: Rig divorce and child custody laws to make marriage a hideous trap for men.

Step 5: Dehumanize men to the point that we believe their only role is to be a servant to women.

Step 6: Act surprised when men give women the middle finger.

Feminism, the culture and some truly horrible changes in the law have made marriage such an unpalatable option for men that large portions of the population are simply eschewing marriage, if not avoiding women entirely. The same changes that freed women from men also freed men from women.

Action, meet consequence.

Let me be clear: I am happily married, enjoy being married, and hope to remain so all the days of my life. But should I find myself unexpectedly single, I would not rush back to the altar, nor would I encourage today’s young men to marry. Partly because the institution has been ruined, but mostly because most women make poor wife material.

Many are the Varnish, few are the Wood.

From up here in the cheap seats, it seems to me that most women are looking for a man who is Tall, Handsome, Muscular, Masculine, Confident, Competent, Charming, Charismatic… and rich. So 80% of the women are eying up the top 5% of the men. Nothing wrong with that, but statistically speaking, most of those women are doomed to disappointment; “settling” for either a lesser man, or a collection of cats.

So what is a marriage-minded man to do?

Here are a few ideas and words of advice:

Cultivate Awesomeness: be a whole man whose body, mind and spirit are in balance.

Build Wealth: All other things being equal, a man with a paid-for car and enough cash in the bank to live for a year will be far more desirable to women that one who does not have these things.

Live Frugally: Don’t buy useless crap.

Dress well. Whether you like it or not, clothes make the man, and are among the first thing that people notice.

Out Yourself: Make yourself available. Be out in public. Watch for opportunities to make new friends.

Approach women. If you’re shy, do it anyway.

Project power: Women are attracted to powerful men. This is why thugs and “gangstas” never lack for female company. Your dress, posture and demeanor signal to women that you are a high-value man.

Stay Strong. Women are attracted to strength; this is simple biology. Stay fit, be strong, keep a good posture, do not slouch.

No Need: Don’t act needy. If you are always free to see her, she will realize that you are not high value and will lose attraction — and once you lose that, it’s a one-way trip to the dreaded friend-zone, if she doesn’t ignore you and move on. Don’t return texts immediately.

Be Brief: Keep text message exchanges short. The purpose of texting is to arrange a date, not to share life stories. Don’t waste your time on women who don’t want to meet.

Friends First: Or, as the saying goes, “Bro’s before Ho’s” — never allow a woman to decided how you spend your time, and with who. At the same time, cultivate friendships with other high-quality men — don’t hang out with losers or trifling men. Remember that you are the average of your five closest friends.

Talk Proper: Keep your mouthpiece crisp: Men are generally turned on by images. Women are generally turned on by words. This is why men watch porn and women read romance novels. Learn to speak well.

Be Content: Be irrationally confident, playful and fun. Women don’t want to be around miserable men.

You Win: Make it clear that she is not the prize, you are.

In the last part, I detailed some of the attributes of men that women find attractive. But what about the women?

“A woman of good character, who can find? Her value is more than rubies”, is how King Solomon put it nearly three millennia ago. And this is as true today as it was back then. Western women are in the main, not very marriage-minded.

But women are really good at hiding the negative aspects of their nature (deceitful, conniving, manipulative, moody) from a man until he has signed on the dotted line and can’t walk — or run — out the door. This is yet another reason why men prefer younger women — they have had fewer opportunities to ruin themselves.

And what about her? What is a man to look for in a woman?

Younger is better: If you want to have a bunch of children, a woman past her prime years (18-24) is simply a bad bet. And if you don’t want to have children, why are you getting married in the first place?

Cut out the fat: Unless you are into bigger girls (most men aren’t), avoid them entirely. They will rant and rave and yell and scream and call you names and foam at the mouth and flop on the floor. Just leave them there. And hope they like cats.

Pick religious/moral/disciplined over cute/hot/sexy. If she reads Cosmo, move on.

Go for wife skills: Is she good with kids? Can she cook? Does she think being a wife and mother is a chore or a calling?

Avoid girls with tattoos, piercings or brightly-colored hair. These are all “slut tells”, and may point to a troubled past. Girls with one or more of these tells will vehemently deny this. Don’t believe them. Women lie to look better than they actually are, as the multi billion-dollar fashion and cosmetics industries mutely testify.

Single Mom? Just say No: It is an indication of how sick Western Society has become that single mothers are held in such high regard. There are three kinds of “single mothers”: Widows (ok, but you may end up living in another man’s shadow), Divorcees (a crap-shoot; remember, the divorce is never her fault) and Baby Mamas (Hell to the no – leave them to the consequences of their misbehavior). As if that is not enough, single mothers will generally put their kids before you, which is never good recipe for a healthy marriage. You never want to find yourself in a position where you have all the responsibility and none of the authority.

What about Daddy? Are her parents married? Does she have a healthy, respectful relationship with her father?

Too much education? Nothing wrong with a girl having qualifications or even a good job. But the brutal, simple truth is that she chose those things over marriage in her prime years, which means that you are more likely to be a must-have fashion accessory than the most important thing in her life.

Watch for impulsive traits: Debt means that may be looking for an ATM to bail her out of her current troubles.

Doubly so for Addictions, medical problems or previous trauma, such as child molestation or rape. No, it’s not her fault, but you are not her therapist. You cannot fix her. She may try to play the damsel in distress to appeal to every good man’s protective instinct. Don’t be fooled by this act.

Run, don’t walk, away from women with any kind of mental health issues (depression/anxiety/BPD/BSC) — you don’t want to be shackled to a nutter for the rest of your life, nor do you want one for the mother of your children.

Does she have a servant’s heart? Men want a wife who is respectful, pleasant and submissive. If she even mentions Feminism — unless it is followed by the words “… is rubbish” — leave her be. Spending your life shackled to a “strong, independent woman” is a bad idea that rarely ends well.

Ignore what she says, watch what she does. If its all about her, there will never been room in her life for you.

Trust but verify: Demand open access to her medical, financial and sexual history. Make is a requirement that she gives you the password to her Social Media accounts (without giving her time to hide the evidence) and look for evidence of misbehavior.

Demand a lie-detector test. Don’t be afraid to ask the hard questions. Don’t be like the man who found out a year into the marriage that his “low-mileage” wife (4 previous partners) turned out to be the “village bicycle” (37).

If there is a financial imbalance, demand a pre-nuptual agreement. If she balks, you just found a gold-digger.

Avoid One-Itis. There is no “The One” for you. Run the numbers — there are about a million girls born every year — that means another girl turns 18 every 31.5 seconds. There are literally two born every minute.

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that Gay Marriage is a constitutional right. You do not have the *right* to marry anyone.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any of the three branches of the Federal Government any power over marriage.

Marriage has always been a free exercise of religion — an area where the Federal Government is explicitly ordered to keep out.

Since the Federal Government has no explicit constitutional mandate to police marriage, this responsibility clearly falls to the States, which is where it was before five Supreme Court Judges (including, unsurprisingly, all three women on the court) decided to usurp that power.

Women on top

This ruling is a logical and expected consequence of giving women the vote. That sounds like a horrible, sexist thing to say, but it is nonetheless true. Two-thirds of the six men on the Supreme Court voted against this measure; had the court been all-male, the measure would have been soundly defeated 6-3. But there were also three women on the court, and that made all the difference.

This is hardly surprising; women in general overwhelmingly vote for progressive/liberal/democratic causes and candidates; they also tend to vote for legislation and social programs that benefit them at the expense of others (such as affirmative action, free birth control and other female-only benefits), as opposed to the population in general. They also, as a rule, tend to prioritize feelings over unpleasant truths. It comes as no surprise, then, that all three women on the court voted in favor of recognizing Gay Marriage, and that was enough to squeak out a 5 to 4 victory — the narrowest possible.

It’s not over till it’s over

I have noticed that whenever Liberals win a victory over the Conservatives — such as in this situation — the former instruct the latter in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up, as the question has been settled for all time. But when the latter takes place — such as California’s Proposition 8, where the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, or the Hobby Lobby Abortifactants ruling — the result is cry of the losers is invariably a rallying battle-cry of “This is not over! We shall fight on until victory is ours!”

Well folks, this is not over. And there will be consequences.

With Marriage comes Divorce

Yes, Gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states, for good or ill. I suspect that there will be quite a lot of ill. For one thing, when you get marriage, you also get divorce. And given that gay men are generally more promiscuous than straight men, I suspect that we will be seeing a lot of those. With Divorce comes property and custody battles; with the added wrinkle that identifying the “mother” or the “father” is impossible in this case, which will make the jobs of the family courts far more difficult than the current “man-bad-woman-good” model currently allows. Still, given that gays are generally more affluent than straights, the divorce lawyers must be rubbing their hands together in delightful anticipation of the windfall that is to come.

The Beatings will continue until morale improves

With marriage also comes a higher level of domestic violence, and studies have shown that lifetime Domestic Violence statistics among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals (7.1% for men, 20% for women). Gay men report 21% Domestic Violence, Lesbians report an incredible 35% — and that was before they were allowed to marry. Given that Domestic Violence is less prevalent outside of marriage on the premise that either partner can walk away at any time, one can only assume that once marriage enters the picture, things will get worse.

Unholy Matrimony

While it is true that Homosexuals now have the right to marry, it has not yet been decided whether they can force a given minister, church or denomination to marry them. And if the primary goal of gay marriage proponents is social acceptance, that is going to be a major sticking point. The US Constitution States that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof“. If marriage within the church is an exercise of religion (Hint:it is), this means that Congress cannot compel a church to marry anybody.

In the real world, ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples — for a variety of reasons — every doo-dah-ding-dong-day. And many will flatly refuse to marry homosexuals, claiming (rightly) that the Bible does not have a single positive thing to say about homosexuality. That is their prerogative — both legally and morally.

And even those churches that choose to marry homosexuals (Which is the bride? Which is the groom?) may find their pews emptying as folks leave in disgust — particularly the older ones, whose tithes and offerings keep the doors open and the preacher in paid employment. Hopefully the happy couple have enough rich friends who will step in and take up the slack.

Disagreement is not Homophobia

There are some who will read this and label me as some sort of bible-thumping homophobe. You are welcome to your opinion, as I am welcome to mine. We can agree to disagree. But you understand this: disagreement is not hatred or fear. To my gay readers out there, live your lives as you see fit; the Constitution guarantees you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do what you want to do with whom you want to do it, as long as nobody gets hurt it is no concern of mine. If you need specific legal rights — survivorship, beneficiary, custody, etc — you can have them in a Civil Union. I have no problem with that.

But when you mess with Marriage, you mess with God. And He has an annoying habit of having the last word.

Or: Panic in the Henhouse

About a month ago, Sir Tim Hunt, 71-year-old Biochemist who won the Nobel prize in 2001, said something that made women’s heads explode.

“Let me tell you about the trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

Naturally this did not go down well with the Henhouse. When pressed for an explanation, he added:

“It is terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them. If they burst into tears it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth. Science is about nothing except getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that, in my experience, diminishes the science.”

When the yammering and the demands for his head subsided, he resigned from his post at the faculty of life sciences at University College London.

Some of the commentary is fascinating. The Henhouse mobilized with hashtags at the ready and Weaponized nagging fully engaged.

Here’s what we know:

All three parts of the original statement are demonstrably true, though obviously not for everyone. Does this mean that all women are like this? Of course not. Was he saying that women should not be in STEM? Absolutely not. Was he saying that women were the problem? Not at all. All he was doing was drawing attention to problems that most have us have encountered at one time or another.

The post that he resigned was an honorary one; his real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). All of that complaining changed nothing.

His main job appears to be finding cures for cancer. Strangely, there are folks out there who would have him removed from this worthy pursuit for the heinous crime of being politically incorrect.

He is 71 years old, even if he was fired from his main job, it would be no great loss, as he is probably not far off from retirement.

This reminds me of a post that I saw about a year ago, in which a female CEO put up a post entitled “I Don’t Want to Hire Women“, in which she stated something similar:

“I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at least a week’s worth of work… (but) when I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff…”

And yet nobody called for her head on a platter. Nobody asked for her resignation. I wonder why…

The heroine was previously in an “intense” relationship with “Rick”. After it ends badly, one assumes – she swears off intimacy (i.e., “sex”).

She meets “Tom”, and decides “no premarital sex”. Tom agrees (like he has a choice in the matter).

Fast-forward to their wedding night, at a hotel before flying out to their honeymoon. while “getting to know each other”, she blurts out “Oh Rick!”

Tom stops what he is doing, calls his parents and tells them that the marriage is over. He then calls her parents and asks then who “Rick” was.

He gets dressed and leaves for their “honeymoon”, taking her passport with him, presumably so she cannot follow him.

She then writes to an agony aunt as the aggrieved party.

This is a classic example of how women lie to themselves and each other. She did not “make a mistake”, she lied to her husband about her sexual past.

The fact that Tom did not know who Rick was shows that this was clearly a lie of omission. You don’t like it when that hot guy forgets to tell you that he’s married? This is no different. Why is it that a man who lies is a rat, but when a woman does it, it is somehow OK?

It is amazing to me how many women buy into the “I’ll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too-and-what-he-doesn’t-know-won’t-hurt-him” meme, only to find the truth hitting them in the face at the most embarrassing possible time. Fortunately this time the truth came out before the man was trapped in a marriage with a woman who decided that a “very intense relationship with” with hot guy Rick somehow “didn’t count”. And women wonder why men are walking away from marriage.

Ladies, your sexual past is important to us. You don’t get to decide what is and is not important to us. You just don’t.

While it was wrong for him to take her passport, it is understandable – but that is relatively minor and is not germane to this story; funny how many people latched onto that one. It’s almost like they needed something to pin on him to cast him as the villain of the piece.

As far as I am concerned, justice has been served. She was ready and willing to start her marriage based on a lie. A lie of omission, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

It has been fun watching all the girlies circling the wagons and protecting the sistahood though…